What Was The Question?

Bro. Juniper

Q. What is the difference between the "Second Vatican Council" and all the other Councils in the Church?

FL, London,UK

A. All the Oecumenical Councils of the Church were called by legitimate Popes, whereas the "Second Vatican Council" was called by an Antipope. John XXIII was an antipope.

Certainly, this is a very serious charge which no one worthy of the name `Catholic' would want to make unless there was ample evidence.

"Good Pope John" is the man responsible for the beginning of the Great Apostasy on the highest level in the Roman Catholic Church: from the office of the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

Setting aside all the `cute' things this rotund man did, the most important is the setting up of the machinery to make the universal apostasy a possibility.

How? Simple. By calling all the world's Roman Catholic bishops to the center of Catholicism, this captive audience would then be subjected to the latest techniques of psychological `brainwashing.' While individual bishops remained in their respective dioceses, the danger was always there that the genuine Catholic ones would be able to resist the apostate ones.

But, when you force them all to come to one place, the peer pressure and other subtle factors work to break down any serious resistance.

That this is true was confirmed by a Franciscan missionary bishop who readily admitted the psychological effect of such `conferences' and get-togethers.

Majors Religious Superiors were already being conditioned through the "Conferences of Major Religious Superiors" where the agenda had already been prepared by a small clique. The assembled Superiors were then easily manipulated and lead to accept the pre-planned and guided program. After `voting' for the things cleverly prepared and having the appearance of good, these would return to their respective regions. Then, the results of the conference would be published and disseminated. Those who voted for one thing, were surprised to find that what they thought they were approving was not quite the same thing that was now being presented under their name.

But, once these reports are published, what can an individual do? Actually, little or nothing. Mostly nothing.

This was the same tactic employed at Vatican II. Only the naïve would accuse bishops for voting on certain things which were presented in such a way that they could easily be "re-interpreted" after the Council.

Trying to put the finger on specific denials of Catholic doctrine is like trying to fetch water with a sieve.

People like slogans and they are not particularly alert to the full implications of these slogans. Take, for example, the famous `catch-all' slogan that was so popular during and after the Council: "The spirit of Vatican II!" Whatever did not appeal to laity, Religious, priest or bishop was immediately discarded. Church Law? Doctrine? Morals? What did these things mean anymore! We had a new `law' _ it was the `law' of the "spirit of Vatican II."

What is the best and easiest way to get what you want from somebody with that person's actual cooperation? That's easy: You simply put the person off his guard. Whenever anyone would object to proposals at the Council, these objections would be set aside on the pretext that "this is not a dogmatic Council; it is a `pastoral' Council."

You see, the difference between `dogmatic' and `pastoral' is this: At a dogmatic Council, definite and clear ideas and the expression of these ideas are presented to the Council Fathers. These ideas represent the subject matter of doctrine _ belief.

A `pastoral' Council is just a gathering to discuss different approaches in the presentation of the truth contained in the unchangeable teaching of the Church. Analyzing the concept itself, a `pastoral' Council means nothing. A `pastoral' Council does not define anything that has already been defined. By definition alone, a `pastoral' Council deals with accepted doctrinal statements.

This is the reason why so many bishops could not understand why a `pastoral'Council was needed at all.

Angelo Roncalli was `dumb like a fox' _ as the saying goes.

What was his first heresy? His first heresy which was made public is contained in his slogan: "Let us emphasize what unites us, rather than what divides us."

As we can see _ at least those of us who have remained Roman Catholic since "Vatican II" _ this slogan has proved that there is nothing that unites us because heretics still remain heretics with one difference: Roman Catholics, with antipopes in the lead, have become the most liberal of Protestants. This is the fruit of "John XXIII's" slogan.

Whenever the anti-Catholic press starts saying nice things about the Catholic Church, it is time to take a close look. When all we heard in those days was "Good Pope John" _ it was time to wake up and see what "Good Pope John" was really doing. What was he doing? He was laying the groundwork for the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church from within!

Before most were aware of it, this `pastoral' Council suddenly became a `dogmatic' Council.

From this Council, a new `Roman Catholic Church' was born: the Conciliar Church _ opposed in doctrine, morals, spirituality and law to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church! Satan had truly entered the Church _ and sat himself in the Chair of Peter.

Let one example suffice:

There are two contradicting answers to the question: Who is a member of the Roman Catholic Church?

Pope Pius XII teaches the unbroken doctrine of the Church:

"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed…..It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of the one Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit."

(Encyclical `Mystici Corporis')

Now, the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" teaches:

"All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God…And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation." (Lumen Gentium, Constitution on the Church, Vatican II as appears in the said-Catechism, presented by "John-Paul II" as the "Holy Spirit's gift to the Church.")

It should be obvious that a Roman Catholic cannot be in both camps. The choice must be made: either to be with Pope Pius XII or with the Conciliar Church presently represented by "Pope John-Paul II."

The Roman Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII is the true Church; the Conciliar Church of John-Paul II is the Church of the Great Apostasy. A genuine Catholic's choice is not hard to see; though hard to make.

Return to Contents

Return to Homepage.